About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1
of the career. they compared that to scientists who ended up not having real breakthroughs the publish the law but didn't really change, didn't have a disruptive idea. what they found was you can judge this by looking at the citations of each paper and how many times each paper was cited by other papers because all this stuff is online now and archived and what they found was the innovators, the ones who had profound new ideas had this interesting pattern where they have a lot more failed papers and published them, far more volume to their work and a huge number of those papers never went anywhere and every now and then there would be one that was an incredible breakouts, most of the time starting out, a short little groundouts whereas the non innovative thinkers who hadn't had the real disruptive idea were just hitting singles and were much more consistent, they were not swinging for defense. the argument is to really be successful in a new way to open the new possibility in your field whether it is science or some other field you have to have this failure and error. that is what makes me see
Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1